Right to refuse a review?

[Lea_1805]

Hi all,

Can anyone advise me here on behalf of one of my carees. With the restrictions lifting, he's just been given a date for a review with not one, but two social workers, who want to come into his home.

He's high risk, and unable to be vaccinated at present, and therefore wishes to continue to shield.

Does anyone know if he has any rights at all to postpone a review under these (or any) circumstances, without detriment to his care package?

Thanks all.

[Maine]

It would be unwise to refuse a review of the support package, but you can ask for a virtual review to be done instead. Get an advocate because social workers can be prone to distorting what was said in order to reduce funding. Yes, you can refuse them to come out to the home and do so. To be fair, social workers often think they have the right to do as they wish... They haven't.
By the way, it must be 'that time of year' for social workers to start pressuring for reviews of packages.

[bowlingbun]

I would say that the review can ONLY take place if they abide by all the social distancing requirements.
Ask them to tell them how it can be achieved safely?

I have the opposite problem, social worker refused to come here even last summer, although I have a large garden, and a large conservatory with doors either end!!

[Lea_1805]

It would be unwise to refuse a review of the support package, but you can ask for a virtual review to be done instead.....
By the way, it must be 'that time of year' for social workers to start pressuring for reviews of packages.

Unwise in what sense?

I would have assumed they'd suggest a review via Zoom etc too, but she wants to come out "with a colleague", so it's double the risk, which just seems unnecessary. Especially as my caree has conditions that will never improve, the constant need for reviews seems ridiculous as things will only slowly get worse over the remaining years.

We know from past experience with this particular social worker that she's looking to make as many cuts to the care package as possible, and caused a lot of distress last time she came around so it's be a very unpleasant experience all round.

I guess because the restrictions are easing now, they're eager to get back in everyone's business, but there are still risks. We won't know how great for a few weeks yet, when we've really had chance to see how well these vaccines work.

I would say that the review can ONLY take place if they abide by all the social distancing requirements.
Ask them to tell them how it can be achieved safely?

I spoke with her and she seems adamant that it's safe to visit since she and her colleague are vaccinated, but I think there's still no real proof yet that the vaccine prevents transmission of the various strains, and with the Indian threat rising it's a real worry. Doesn't seem wise to me at all to be visiting highly vulnerable people in person, especially two fold. Not when there are digital alternatives.

[Penny]

Ha ha ... I am the exact opposite. Daughter and I don’t want a cyber or phone review. We want face to face and the SW says they have been advised not to visit unless essential.

We have had both jabs, I can provide space in a large room with open patio doors.

Personally I think they make stuff up as they go along!

[Maine]

Hiya. Yes, I received this little piece recently concerning my son's reviews off I will call her Krusty Katie and co-signed by Crackling Rose the social worker.

'No changes to your son's funding will be considered, without the assessment taking place, and
unfortunately due to the statutory nature of section 117 and PHB’s reviews, failure to participate
may lead to a reduction or withdrawal of the care package'.

Now as it was Cracking Rose had been on leave for 4 months from her 4-month allocation to my son and had now returned demanding with menace I comply to time schedules within days and with immediate effect and Krusty Katie also co-signed a time schedule of 'or else' to me.

For this, I defied their time schedules.

However, I am still under threat of 'having to' attend a set of reviews on an 'or else' basis.

My comment of unwise is based on the threats I have had to endure regarding the review. Something social workers are all too fond of believing they can do.

[Lea_1805]

Personally I think they make stuff up as they go along!

I agree. I guess we're all still playing things by ear to some degree with the pandemic being uncharted waters, there are no rules for most things right now, but it seems social workers have been picking and choosing the rules they follow since time in memorial.

'No changes to your son's funding will be considered, without the assessment taking place, and
unfortunately due to the statutory nature of section 117 and PHB’s reviews, failure to participate
may lead to a reduction or withdrawal of the care package'.....My comment of unwise is based on the threats I have had to endure regarding the review. Something social workers are all too fond of believing they can do.

Section 117 of what? It's ridiculous to me that they say no changes will be considered, and then threaten that the care will be reduced/withdrawn if you don't comply. Honestly I'm so sick of the constant scrutiny, especially when most of it is purely money orientated.

Do you know if it's possible/wise to request an alternative social worker? The one in question for my caree has caused a lot of bother already and none of us want to deal with her again due to the distress she caused last time.

[Maine]

Hiya, 117 is aftercare arranged when someone is discharged from hospital and they've been sectioned under the mental health Act. Under section 3.
This is where things get interesting. My son was held in an A.T.U. in April 2006 for needing respite. They couldn't find anywhere else to put him. So they placed him in a hospital and they said they would need to section him, but not to worry, he could come back home after his couple of week's stay.
That didn't happen, what happened instead was the consultant barred his return home for 17-months. So when he came out in August 2007 he was placed on section 117 after... and for the next 14 years and counting. They have forced 117 aftercare. Now they think they can review every 12 months only they don't normally bother themselves to do so. But when they do like in 2013 they came and cut his care into less than half. They claimed 'he didn't have health needs' but they also forgot he has epilepsy and that he was still on 117 aftercare.
Anyway, this led to 8 months without enough care in place and the situation had to go to the ombudsman. The ombudsman upheld my complaint but I never got my son's respite back. Since then they have given my son a terrible service as a punishment and in turn, they also punish me. They actually think they can totally ignore... Until that is that they want to assess or review.
As the crackpot social worker chose to write threatening me as soon as she was back from leave, which was also her whole allocation to my son. I decided she and health who had given my son no services could go and jump in a lake for all I cared about their threats.
As I was sent endless emails from various useless individuals who were bullying me about set scheduled reviews. I had the last laugh when I gave them a taste of their own meds by responding with this little beauty which states:-
I am on annual leave, will be returning on 10.06.21. I will endeavour to reply to your emails within two working days of my return.
Since then they have gone completely quiet. So I guess if you don't want a social worker then totally blank her as I have.

[Maine]

Oh and regarding changing your social worker. These social worker things normally have a shelf life of about 12 months when their service generates yet another crackpot